If information can not have a price as you say, what about the research or creation of that information?
You are confusing the information with the labour of discovering, forumlating, processing it etc. One can expect to get paid for that labour but one cannot expect to do so by selling (or licensing, renting, leasing etc) the information. Some other means have to be worked out, patronage sponsorship system being most straightforward and logical one.
Sure. I mean, people getting paid for the product of intellectual work
You sarcasm argument does not make. Define "product" of this "intellectual work". How do you package it? What is the production process? How many individual "items" this process produces? One - the concept of the idea? Millions - the idea as it is in other people's thoughts after being revealed? What is the cost of replication? Who pays that cost? Oh how sarcastic it looks now, no?
Patrons (only the rich get to hear real music and elaborate poetry)
That was because there were no means of dissemination of art. Church sponsored art for example did manage to be disseminated widely since the church had the means to do so. Modern age has no such difficulties. Not to mention that patrons can include foundations and governments.
Obviously the fact that the general public does not immediately hold the superiority of such models...
and that principle is copyright and patent, two fundamental bricks of intellectual property.
Not for me and many, many other people who believe that there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property" due to many reasons I described in discussions here, main one being that information does not have the required physical attributes needed to be "private property". This to me is no less a fundamental overarching pinciple then the protection against slavery, documents written by people long ago notwidthstanding (btw I am a Canadian so US constitution has little sway with me although we have similiar if not more convoluted laws). Note again your slavish adherence (worship it seems) to a document, rather then logic. So while logic dictates that protection from slavery was indeed a good and just idea, patents and copyrights proved illogical conceptually and of questionable effects practically. Our understanding of things can change over time as new data arrives, US constitution cannot react by means other then ammendments which at this point would likely to be corporately sponsored ones and going quite contrary to logic and common sense but very agreeable with greed.
By this logic, there's no compelling reason for any research or effort to be put into "IP". In the case of the musician here, there is no incentive for any post-production work to be done
Which of course is the main reason why Plato never wrote a thing, Aristotle ended up a male model, Newton was a cheese-grater, Mozart was a cook and Einstein a taxi driver.
Due to ever-present brainwashing by various charlatans and greed mongers you appear to believe that the motivating factor of art and science is money. Lets get some things straight here: Art is a form of self-expression and has nothing to do with money. Only mass produced kitsch has some "industrial" monetary element. Atrists can get paid by patrons only when they are exceptional, most should not quit their day jobs as it should be. Would this decrease the quantity of "art"? Sure. At the price of making the quality count.
As to science: scientists seek knowledge and recognition. That is why a well-functioning and funded public academia is the only way to guarantee progress. "Intellectual Property" is another way of taking the public body of knowledge (provided by countless generations who went before) and carving some chunks out of it plus slapping "private property, keep out" labels on them. No to mention anti-competetive, anti-free market, corporate welfare uses of various forms of "IP" such as patents and copyrights.
As for the case of genetically engineered canola, the corporation SHOULD be getting a piece of the action wherever the crop is grown to be sold,
Your lack of foresight is frightening. Not only the canola can spread on its own (as it happened in the case of the farmer I mentioned) it is also fundamentally evil to attempt to "own" DNA sequences. One implication of the myriads that this nightmare can produce is "royalty" on children of parents who underwent a DNA therapy, since the children (and their progeny) are now carriers of some corporation's "Intellectual Property".
a pliable business model for these industries
a) they are not industries outside sick imagination of some greedy people. b) the alternative is patronage system and c) see the motivations of artists above.
common law that says... Exclusivity contracts are rampant, everyday, regular old things... All kinds of online databases use this premise....That's absurd.. etc
I thought you are attempting to argue validity of the law and I replied accordingly. I see now you are merely arguing slavish adherance to existing morass of "laws" perverted to serve certain minority. In this I want you to ponder the fact that the same "contract law" you blindly believe in also used in great detail describe "contractual" arrangements involved in "trade" and "ownership" of other human beings. I can easilly imagine a discussion like this whereby I argue that slave trade is fundamentally evil and unjustified and you go on about how my position is "absurd" because such trade is "everyday, regular old thing".
Free can mean no price, in that sand I suppose is also free.
It is fundamentally different. Sand can have price. One can sell special kind of sand that occurs in only one place on Earth. That sand then can be re-sold. It is a physical object. Sand normally is considered "free" due to its abundance in nature but it is not inherently so. Information on the other hand, simply cannot have a price no nore then vacuum can.
Actually yes... I've had it called a freakish sight before...;)
Actually I was referring to the RIAA/MPAA running around calling people "thieves" but I think I will manage to sleep even after the... err... excessively detailed information you provided.
So you're saying the creative effort in composing and mastering music is absolutely worthless and can't be sold?
No, the effort is labour and thus subject to pay based on effort, time etc. This however does not imply that a mechanism for payment is sale of information. A patron or a foundation can pay an artist for the labour creating art. Those who are lucky and produce physical representations (paintings/sculpture) can sell originals. Performers can perform on stage. Etc. None however are entitled to transfer the burden of their labour onto someone's else's machinery.
Get real, the only way you could be arguing this point is if you were playing devil's advocate
I assure you, I am dead serious. If you allow treatment of information as "private property" a road to Hell opens up. And if you do not believe me just look up the results of the lawsuit of a Canadian farmer against the mega-corp Monsanto: the company does own the DNA sequences of "their" species of canola, and you are obliged to pay up if it spreads to your field. Only people with no imagination and no foresight would not see where this leads to.
I can't demand money from you for staring at me, but if I tell you I'll let you see me naked for $10 and you say ok, then you get to see a hairy butt and I get $10
All you are doing is performing for me live.
To take that further, if The terms are set that You can take a picture of me for $10 but can't copy it and give it away, and you agree, then that's that.
Even if I did, this would not make you an owner of the "experience" of your butt, because a 3rd party, without my permission could sneak a peek (either at my photo or your "performance" directly) and begin mass disemination of the freakish sight. Since they agreed to nothing, under your interpretation, they are free to do so. You nor me would have any control and yet you could then accuse me of being a "thief". Sounds familiar?
assuming some larger overriding principles are true
And herein lies the rub: they are not. Information does not have the required physical properties to be "private property" nor "labour" (or action) and thus is entirely outside traditional economic considerations. The only type of contract that could be drawn is one obligating one party to maintain information in one of its fundamental states: known or unknown. One could swear secrecy for example. Unfortunately this is entirely impossible to apply to enterntainment because the objective of a broadcaster/distributor is to disseminate information and thus break the secrecy. The consumer cannot be required to work for the music company in guarding the secrecy, even if one ignores the fact that the very medium on which the information is disseminated (air vibrations) is not conducive to secrecy.
Britney and Justin are an industry just like hamburgers
Well... as much as I would like to agree with you, the existence of Britney etc is predicated on a bunch of legal chickanery, mis-representations and lies dealing with treatment of information, implications of which are far more sinister and reach much deeper then air-headed teen stars. There cannot be an "industry" processing... abstract concepts. If information is properly classified to be outside the economic realm, Britney at all cant be made to generate revenue streams based on sales of pieces of dimpled plastic. Some other means would probably be quickly invented but these are beyond the scope of my interest.
I wrote that "people want information to be free", which is why this is all going on.
Which h is at its core false. The question is framed by those who wish you to make assumptions such as: information can be "free", thus conversly it can also have a "price" and then before you can blink the entire mountain of "Intellectual Property" rubbish is balanced on this assumption.
suppose it's just that I see me paying money for experiences
That is one interpretation, unfortunately a false one. If it were true, one could charge for the "experience" of looking at something, say a mountain or a river. Not to mention terminally unsolvable connundrums like: is my experience the same as yours? What if it is different? Does an amusement park owner "own" the experience of riding a "red wagon"? What if some other park has a "red wagon". Etc, etc. What you actually pay for is the use of the park's facilites, nothing more. It is a concept related to lending, renting, leasing etc. Based on ownership of a physical object. Note that at any given time only a limited number of people can be present "experiencing" the objects in question for they are physical and unique.
However, the whole information on a computer thing is new, and basically goes by the rules that it duplicates experiences that can be experienced over and over.
Not at all. Computers do not introduce anything new to the rules, other then an excuse by some clever charlattans to befuddle and confuse things to their advantage. Information cannot have an owner any more then the Sun or "vacuum" can. Only qualifying (the Sun does not), physical (information does not), unique objects (light as a concept does not, but light as a volume of unique photons does, very much the same way a bag of beans does) and labour are subject to economic trade. If you allow any "exceptions" to these fundamental rules of marketplace, you will end up with a nightmare, as we are slowly finding out. You will end up with royalties on children whose great-great-grand-parents bought a DNA therapy. You will end up with certiain large integer numbers (numerical representations of songs or patented designs) being owned by some poeple. Eventually, you will end up with ownership of thought patterns when technology will become available to monitor them. That last one is the clincher, people forget that information = thought, and once thoughts are considered to have "owners"... I think Dante was unimaginative when he described Hell for this would be a nightmare without peers.
How are vibrations an abstract thing when you can feel them
What I feel is the air molecules themselves. What vibrations do, is to change their behaviour. The critical distinction here is that the vibrations of the molecules do not possess required attributes to be a unique object that can be traded.
As for economic price and quantity... If you pay me, I'll play music.
Very well, but now you are dealing with a completely different category of economic exchanges: labour. If you proceed under this assumption, then I agree with you: you get paid when you perform. In a concert. Live. This no longer applies if you do record your performance and attempt to get machinery (owned by someone else) perform (based on a plastic disk owned by someone else) your performance (using energy, delivery of which someone else paid for) for you and you get paid anyways. Often expecting to get paid orders of magnitude compared to actually performing the labour. There is a name for this: a scam.
Pedantry is the only modus operendi in dealing with legal scams like that of "Intellectual Property" or music "industry". Their entire base is a maze of skillfully crafted mis-directions, false definitions and lies.
the vibrations/music and the person's fist are both things.
No. One is an abstract concept, the other is a physical object. When I say a "thing" I mean a physical object that in some cases can be "private property" and thus subject to economic exchange, price, etc. Air vibrations do not qualify for this and you know it. The sad and long history of the successful operation of the music "industry" scam and the various plunderers under the banner of "Intellectual Property" do not negate this simple fact.
This statement is not only irrelevant (information is not a "thing" and thus cannot be private property and thus being "owned" and thus gotten for "free") but also quite revealing of your attitude towards the universe: everything in yours has its price. Libertarian, are you?
I don't know. Are you serously suggesting that anything which can be represented digitally is NOT a thing?
Information can be stored and processed, digitally among other countless means. Yet it is not an object and cannot never take that form, since it is an abstract concept. In case of music, we are talking about vibrations of air.
That's a great succinct response to "information wants to be free". I'm gonna remember that one.
Its a stupid answer to a stupid statement. Information cannot want anything because it is an abstract, inanimate concept. By responding that people want "things" for free to this nonsensical statement you add additional layer of stupidity by assuming that information is a "thing" (implying an object that can be bought/sold).
If you want to go back to the patronage model, please, feel free to stump up the money to do so yourself.
Why? There is nothing inherently wrong with patronage model, its merely different and more appropriate for arts then the "assembly line/distributor/widget sales" model. Unlike the latter, the former does not require treating information as it were physical property with all of the logic/legal nonsense that approach produces (all the way down to ownership of DNA sequences). Instead, artists/scientists get paid and the resulting art/science/information is for all to share. The only thing to work out is the mechanisms for patronage. Remember, art is not business or "industry" (a most annoying lie). It is a way for an artists to express himself/herself. The commercial side-effects are just that, and might not occur at all in many cases, it is no accident that many artists before this kitsch-mass-production nonsense were indeed working at other jobs. Ever heard of a "starving artiste"? I cant believe people have become so brainwashed by the media moguls to believe otherwise.
Funny, I was pretty sure the 1GB = 1000MB. Perhaps you should do a little more research yourself, and note that what you're thinking of is 1GiB = 1024MiB with MebiBytes, and GibiBytes.
I couldn't help but notice this. This is the reason Wikipedia is nothing but a pile of steaming donkey dung. Gigabyte = 1024 megabytes was that way ever since I remember learning about bytes and that was 25+ years ago. Only after marketing imbeciles got the bright idea to misinform and cheat consumers this has become an issue... and now some cretins are making up units to accomodate the assholes who created this mess. And you quote the totally un-authoritative Wiki-wankers who put it up in their grand work of dis-information, political bias and outright lies known as Wikipedia and thus spread this further. What a study of self-reinforcing crock. Truly depressing.
On a technical note, the SI system defines kilo, mega, giga as powers of 10. This was never followed in the computer science in regards to computer storage where the tradition was to use powers of 2 exclusively. Thus kilo = 1024 etc.
So, your attempts to change the subject fail, and you are finally going for the double, eh?
Goodness me. Double? And I need a pair of duces to get double my winnings? You do now think this is a casino where you are running a table and I am a player? I am feeling guilty since asking this question might worsen your condition, but what is the jackpot? Wait... before you answer: no its not the same as crackpot, I know you have that one in ample supply.
Well, read the thread from the top... This guy writes his own quotes - he's a pathological liar
Sir, I stand corrected. I had you down for a petty nutcase who decided to focus his disappointments in life and low self-esteem into his crusade to prove to the world that Java is the One And True Language and All Shall Bow Before Its Glorious Light. But now it seems I was mistaken. Since your reply clearly indicates you are now thinking there are two of me, this would indicate far more serious mental problems and warrant the coveted title of a Complete Fruitcake with Nuts. And in your special case also one with Java Beans tossed in for a good measure. I humbly bow in deference to your towering woowooism.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing the information with the labour of discovering, forumlating, processing it etc. One can expect to get paid for that labour but one cannot expect to do so by selling (or licensing, renting, leasing etc) the information. Some other means have to be worked out, patronage sponsorship system being most straightforward and logical one.
You sarcasm argument does not make. Define "product" of this "intellectual work". How do you package it? What is the production process? How many individual "items" this process produces? One - the concept of the idea? Millions - the idea as it is in other people's thoughts after being revealed? What is the cost of replication? Who pays that cost? Oh how sarcastic it looks now, no?
Patrons (only the rich get to hear real music and elaborate poetry)
That was because there were no means of dissemination of art. Church sponsored art for example did manage to be disseminated widely since the church had the means to do so. Modern age has no such difficulties. Not to mention that patrons can include foundations and governments.
Obviously the fact that the general public does not immediately hold the superiority of such models...
Err.. look up the term "point to point network".
Not for me and many, many other people who believe that there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property" due to many reasons I described in discussions here, main one being that information does not have the required physical attributes needed to be "private property". This to me is no less a fundamental overarching pinciple then the protection against slavery, documents written by people long ago notwidthstanding (btw I am a Canadian so US constitution has little sway with me although we have similiar if not more convoluted laws). Note again your slavish adherence (worship it seems) to a document, rather then logic. So while logic dictates that protection from slavery was indeed a good and just idea, patents and copyrights proved illogical conceptually and of questionable effects practically. Our understanding of things can change over time as new data arrives, US constitution cannot react by means other then ammendments which at this point would likely to be corporately sponsored ones and going quite contrary to logic and common sense but very agreeable with greed.
Which of course is the main reason why Plato never wrote a thing, Aristotle ended up a male model, Newton was a cheese-grater, Mozart was a cook and Einstein a taxi driver.
Due to ever-present brainwashing by various charlatans and greed mongers you appear to believe that the motivating factor of art and science is money. Lets get some things straight here: Art is a form of self-expression and has nothing to do with money. Only mass produced kitsch has some "industrial" monetary element. Atrists can get paid by patrons only when they are exceptional, most should not quit their day jobs as it should be. Would this decrease the quantity of "art"? Sure. At the price of making the quality count.
As to science: scientists seek knowledge and recognition. That is why a well-functioning and funded public academia is the only way to guarantee progress. "Intellectual Property" is another way of taking the public body of knowledge (provided by countless generations who went before) and carving some chunks out of it plus slapping "private property, keep out" labels on them. No to mention anti-competetive, anti-free market, corporate welfare uses of various forms of "IP" such as patents and copyrights.
As for the case of genetically engineered canola, the corporation SHOULD be getting a piece of the action wherever the crop is grown to be sold,
Your lack of foresight is frightening. Not only the canola can spread on its own (as it happened in the case of the farmer I mentioned) it is also fundamentally evil to attempt to "own" DNA sequences. One implication of the myriads that this nightmare can produce is "royalty" on children of parents who underwent a DNA therapy, since the children (and their progeny) are now carriers of some corporation's "Intellectual Property".
a pliable business model for these industries
a) they are not industries outside sick imagination of some greedy people. b) the alternative is patronage system and c) see the motivations of artists above.
I thought you are attempting to argue validity of the law and I replied accordingly. I see now you are merely arguing slavish adherance to existing morass of "laws" perverted to serve certain minority. In this I want you to ponder the fact that the same "contract law" you blindly believe in also used in great detail describe "contractual" arrangements involved in "trade" and "ownership" of other human beings. I can easilly imagine a discussion like this whereby I argue that slave trade is fundamentally evil and unjustified and you go on about how my position is "absurd" because such trade is "everyday, regular old thing".
It is fundamentally different. Sand can have price. One can sell special kind of sand that occurs in only one place on Earth. That sand then can be re-sold. It is a physical object. Sand normally is considered "free" due to its abundance in nature but it is not inherently so. Information on the other hand, simply cannot have a price no nore then vacuum can.
Actually I was referring to the RIAA/MPAA running around calling people "thieves" but I think I will manage to sleep even after the ... err ... excessively detailed information you provided.
I dont, although my pedantry only applies to the essence of the message not its form.
No, the effort is labour and thus subject to pay based on effort, time etc. This however does not imply that a mechanism for payment is sale of information. A patron or a foundation can pay an artist for the labour creating art. Those who are lucky and produce physical representations (paintings/sculpture) can sell originals. Performers can perform on stage. Etc. None however are entitled to transfer the burden of their labour onto someone's else's machinery.
Get real, the only way you could be arguing this point is if you were playing devil's advocate
I assure you, I am dead serious. If you allow treatment of information as "private property" a road to Hell opens up. And if you do not believe me just look up the results of the lawsuit of a Canadian farmer against the mega-corp Monsanto: the company does own the DNA sequences of "their" species of canola, and you are obliged to pay up if it spreads to your field. Only people with no imagination and no foresight would not see where this leads to.
All you are doing is performing for me live.
To take that further, if The terms are set that You can take a picture of me for $10 but can't copy it and give it away, and you agree, then that's that.
Even if I did, this would not make you an owner of the "experience" of your butt, because a 3rd party, without my permission could sneak a peek (either at my photo or your "performance" directly) and begin mass disemination of the freakish sight. Since they agreed to nothing, under your interpretation, they are free to do so. You nor me would have any control and yet you could then accuse me of being a "thief". Sounds familiar?
And herein lies the rub: they are not. Information does not have the required physical properties to be "private property" nor "labour" (or action) and thus is entirely outside traditional economic considerations. The only type of contract that could be drawn is one obligating one party to maintain information in one of its fundamental states: known or unknown. One could swear secrecy for example. Unfortunately this is entirely impossible to apply to enterntainment because the objective of a broadcaster/distributor is to disseminate information and thus break the secrecy. The consumer cannot be required to work for the music company in guarding the secrecy, even if one ignores the fact that the very medium on which the information is disseminated (air vibrations) is not conducive to secrecy.
Well... as much as I would like to agree with you, the existence of Britney etc is predicated on a bunch of legal chickanery, mis-representations and lies dealing with treatment of information, implications of which are far more sinister and reach much deeper then air-headed teen stars. There cannot be an "industry" processing ... abstract concepts. If information is properly classified to be outside the economic realm, Britney at all cant be made to generate revenue streams based on sales of pieces of dimpled plastic. Some other means would probably be quickly invented but these are beyond the scope of my interest.
Which h is at its core false. The question is framed by those who wish you to make assumptions such as: information can be "free", thus conversly it can also have a "price" and then before you can blink the entire mountain of "Intellectual Property" rubbish is balanced on this assumption.
That is one interpretation, unfortunately a false one. If it were true, one could charge for the "experience" of looking at something, say a mountain or a river. Not to mention terminally unsolvable connundrums like: is my experience the same as yours? What if it is different? Does an amusement park owner "own" the experience of riding a "red wagon"? What if some other park has a "red wagon". Etc, etc. What you actually pay for is the use of the park's facilites, nothing more. It is a concept related to lending, renting, leasing etc. Based on ownership of a physical object. Note that at any given time only a limited number of people can be present "experiencing" the objects in question for they are physical and unique.
However, the whole information on a computer thing is new, and basically goes by the rules that it duplicates experiences that can be experienced over and over.
Not at all. Computers do not introduce anything new to the rules, other then an excuse by some clever charlattans to befuddle and confuse things to their advantage. Information cannot have an owner any more then the Sun or "vacuum" can. Only qualifying (the Sun does not), physical (information does not), unique objects (light as a concept does not, but light as a volume of unique photons does, very much the same way a bag of beans does) and labour are subject to economic trade. If you allow any "exceptions" to these fundamental rules of marketplace, you will end up with a nightmare, as we are slowly finding out. You will end up with royalties on children whose great-great-grand-parents bought a DNA therapy. You will end up with certiain large integer numbers (numerical representations of songs or patented designs) being owned by some poeple. Eventually, you will end up with ownership of thought patterns when technology will become available to monitor them. That last one is the clincher, people forget that information = thought, and once thoughts are considered to have "owners"... I think Dante was unimaginative when he described Hell for this would be a nightmare without peers.
What I feel is the air molecules themselves. What vibrations do, is to change their behaviour. The critical distinction here is that the vibrations of the molecules do not possess required attributes to be a unique object that can be traded.
As for economic price and quantity... If you pay me, I'll play music.
Very well, but now you are dealing with a completely different category of economic exchanges: labour. If you proceed under this assumption, then I agree with you: you get paid when you perform. In a concert. Live. This no longer applies if you do record your performance and attempt to get machinery (owned by someone else) perform (based on a plastic disk owned by someone else) your performance (using energy, delivery of which someone else paid for) for you and you get paid anyways. Often expecting to get paid orders of magnitude compared to actually performing the labour. There is a name for this: a scam.
Pedantry is the only modus operendi in dealing with legal scams like that of "Intellectual Property" or music "industry". Their entire base is a maze of skillfully crafted mis-directions, false definitions and lies.
No. One is an abstract concept, the other is a physical object. When I say a "thing" I mean a physical object that in some cases can be "private property" and thus subject to economic exchange, price, etc. Air vibrations do not qualify for this and you know it. The sad and long history of the successful operation of the music "industry" scam and the various plunderers under the banner of "Intellectual Property" do not negate this simple fact.
This statement is not only irrelevant (information is not a "thing" and thus cannot be private property and thus being "owned" and thus gotten for "free") but also quite revealing of your attitude towards the universe: everything in yours has its price. Libertarian, are you?
Information can be stored and processed, digitally among other countless means. Yet it is not an object and cannot never take that form, since it is an abstract concept. In case of music, we are talking about vibrations of air.
No it is not. It is merely a bunch of virations of air molecules. Nothing more.
That's a great succinct response to "information wants to be free". I'm gonna remember that one.
Its a stupid answer to a stupid statement. Information cannot want anything because it is an abstract, inanimate concept. By responding that people want "things" for free to this nonsensical statement you add additional layer of stupidity by assuming that information is a "thing" (implying an object that can be bought/sold).
Why? There is nothing inherently wrong with patronage model, its merely different and more appropriate for arts then the "assembly line/distributor/widget sales" model. Unlike the latter, the former does not require treating information as it were physical property with all of the logic/legal nonsense that approach produces (all the way down to ownership of DNA sequences). Instead, artists/scientists get paid and the resulting art/science/information is for all to share. The only thing to work out is the mechanisms for patronage. Remember, art is not business or "industry" (a most annoying lie). It is a way for an artists to express himself/herself. The commercial side-effects are just that, and might not occur at all in many cases, it is no accident that many artists before this kitsch-mass-production nonsense were indeed working at other jobs. Ever heard of a "starving artiste"? I cant believe people have become so brainwashed by the media moguls to believe otherwise.
I couldn't help but notice this. This is the reason Wikipedia is nothing but a pile of steaming donkey dung. Gigabyte = 1024 megabytes was that way ever since I remember learning about bytes and that was 25+ years ago. Only after marketing imbeciles got the bright idea to misinform and cheat consumers this has become an issue... and now some cretins are making up units to accomodate the assholes who created this mess. And you quote the totally un-authoritative Wiki-wankers who put it up in their grand work of dis-information, political bias and outright lies known as Wikipedia and thus spread this further. What a study of self-reinforcing crock. Truly depressing.
On a technical note, the SI system defines kilo, mega, giga as powers of 10. This was never followed in the computer science in regards to computer storage where the tradition was to use powers of 2 exclusively. Thus kilo = 1024 etc.
Goodness me. Double? And I need a pair of duces to get double my winnings? You do now think this is a casino where you are running a table and I am a player? I am feeling guilty since asking this question might worsen your condition, but what is the jackpot? Wait ... before you answer: no its not the same as crackpot, I know you have that one in ample supply.
Sir, I stand corrected. I had you down for a petty nutcase who decided to focus his disappointments in life and low self-esteem into his crusade to prove to the world that Java is the One And True Language and All Shall Bow Before Its Glorious Light. But now it seems I was mistaken. Since your reply clearly indicates you are now thinking there are two of me, this would indicate far more serious mental problems and warrant the coveted title of a Complete Fruitcake with Nuts. And in your special case also one with Java Beans tossed in for a good measure. I humbly bow in deference to your towering woowooism.